1243929-ILANG1

VACATION ESSAY
THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
English Language & Applied Linguistics

VACATION ESSAY
Term 1
Student Number: 1243929
MA TEFL
Year 2014/2015

Title of Module: Introduction to Language

Question: Students often feel they need to learn grammar in a structured way. But is it
really necessary for a teacher to explain the rules of grammar in order for students to
learn them? Illustrate your answer with reference to recent research concerning
language and language learning/acquisition.
Number of words: 3, 886
DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP
I declare:
a.

that this submission is my own work;

b.

that this is written in my own words; and

c.

that all quotations from published or unpublished work are acknowledged

with quotation marks and references to the work in question.

Page

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
Date:
1. Introduction
Grammar teaching in the second language classroom has been a debatable point for linguists
and educators. Ellis (2002), Lightbown and Spada (1999), and Thornburry (1999) consider
grammar teaching as beneficial since grammar may help learners to form sentences in target
language. On the other hand, Krashen (1983), Van Lier (1998), and Vanpatten (2003) argue
the benefit of grammar teaching to the linguistic competence (knowledge of target language)
of learners. They reason learners only have to be exposed to input to acquire the linguistic
competence. Despite the contrasting views toward grammar teaching, teachers and learners
are ones that should decide whether grammar is taught or not in the classroom. Although
teachers may fully comprehend the rules of language, they still have to consider if learners
will consider grammar as important for their language development or will be overwhelmed
with seemingly complicated rules and lose motivation to learn the target language. Thus,
there are further questions that need to be proposed before applying grammar teaching. Do
learners really need grammar teaching in the classroom? If the answer of prior question is
affirmative, what kind of grammar teaching do learners need to improve their linguistic
competence? Should learners be exposed with rules of language before they use them in
sentences (deductive approach) or let learners decode the rules by themselves from the
samples of language (inductive approach)? This essay aims at answering previous questions.
2. Grammar
Grammar is a set of rules which governs how words are formed into sentences. It provides an
outlet for learners to analyse which sentence is possible (or impossible) in a target language.
The ability to recognise and produce well-formed sentences is needed by learners as it will
help learners communicate their spoken or written messages (Thornburry, 1999: 1-6).
Furthermore, Batstone describes grammar as an underlying framework that keeps language
from being chaotic (1994: 4). It can be said that grammar may provide learners with a better
view of language from a 'seemingly unorganized' shape into the 'organized' structure. Hence,
grammar divides language into neat categories (e.g. the definite article, the present
continuous, and possessive pronouns) or sometimes called discrete items that form the focus
of a lesson or an exercise. Each discrete item can be separated and put into a syllabus or
incorporated with other item. Thus, language can be more digestible to learners. In addition,

Page

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
the organized structure of grammar may help teachers to focus their teaching in the
classrooms and reduce the apparent enormity of the language learning tasks (Thornburry,
1999: 16-17). Therefore, grammar may function as an organiser of language that helps
learners understand the patterns of target language.
Due to its function, grammar has been taught in the second language classrooms for
centuries. Nevertheless, grammar teaching in second language learning has seen its rise and
decline due to the conflicting views of linguists toward its benefit as well as the lack of it.
Summarizing the points made by Herron (1976), Howatt (1984), and Rutherford (1987),
Hinkel and Fotos state that grammatical analysis and translation of written forms (known as
the grammar-translation method) was the focus of second language teaching until the
beginning of the 20th century. At that time, the linguists argued that although the grammartranslation method could provide learners with sufficient knowledge of grammar, learners
could not use the language communicatively. In addition, there was a need of spoken fluency
in second language. Thus, the Audio-lingual Method transpired as a teaching method to
answer the need of learners toward spoken fluency (2002: 2).
Rooted from the idea of behaviourists which perceives language as a habit formation, the
Audio-lingual Method emphasizes on drilling certain expressions of target language to
achieve learners' fluency. The grammar teaching is absent in the Audio-lingual Method as
teachers let learners to decode the structure by themselves through constant drilling of target
language. Therefore, grammar teaching was put aside until 1950s and 1960s as the rise of
cognitive method that considered rules of language as too complex to be learned naturally by
learners. Hence, cognitive method argued that explicit grammar instruction is needed by
learners to develop their linguistic competence. However, explicit grammar instruction was
criticised by Communicative Approach (CA) in the 1970s (ibid, 2002: 4). Considering
teaching learners to form grammatically correct sentences as insufficient to make learners
fluent in target language, CA suggests that learners should be provided with communicative
competence or the ability to communicate in a variety situations and settings with various
speakers (Hymes in Hall, 2011: 94). The separation of grammatical form and communicative
meaning may make it difficult for learners to connect different parts of the grammatical
system and apply the rules they had learned in communication (Nunan, 1994: 78). In
addition, CA argues that "different learners have different communicative requirements"
(Nunan, 1999: 10) that motivate them to study the target language. As an example, the

Page

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
language needs of a student who wants to study abroad may be different from a secretary who
needs to deal with clients. Thus, the mastery of whole grammatical structure may be not
imperative for learners that only need certain skills of language.
Instead of explicit grammar instruction, CA emphasizes on providing learners with authentic
input which contained forms and vocabulary of target language, assuming the learners will
acquire the forms of language naturally as the children do with their first language. Despite
the initial popularity, the neglect of grammar instruction in CA is still criticised by linguists as
learners do not only need communicative competence but also grammatical competence to
communicate well (Hinkel and Fotos, 2002: 4-5). As claimed by Canale and Swain (1980: 5),
grammatical competence is a part of communicative competence. Lightbown and Spada
(1992: 408) add, Grammatical accuracy is important because it marks a
second language learner as competent. In addition, a series of examples provided
by Ortega in Hall (2011: 69) suggests the increase in the rate of learning and accuracy when
learners are provided with the explicit grammatical instruction compared to the uninstructed
learners. Therefore, grammar teaching can also be regarded as important for learners
accuracy and competence. Relatively similar statement is also mentioned by Larsen-Freeman
(1991), Rea Dickins and Woods (1988), and Terrell (1991). Thus, as argued by Hinkel and
Fotos (2002: 5), exposure to input may be not enough to develop grammatical competence of
learners. Certain types of knowledge and skills such as academic and professional speaking
and writing are difficult to be attained from the process of naturalistic learning provided by
CA. Advanced proficiency and accuracy in spoken and written language, which essential for
effective functioning in academic, professional, and some vocational communications, may
require instructed learning.
However, providing grammar teaching to learners does not mean leaving communicative
activities entirely as "language as communication involves the active use of grammar and
vocabulary to listen and read effectively and to speak with and to write to other people"
(Nunan, 1999: 71). It can be concluded that both grammar teaching and communicative
activities should be given to learners to ensure the optimal language acquisition. Thus, to
combine the benefits of grammar teaching and communicative activities,
Focus on Form (FoF) is designed. The latter point is defined by Hall (2011:
245) as an approach that attending to language forms and structures at
any stage of instruction, often as they arise within the context of
Page

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
meaningful interaction. Hence, FoF introduces grammar teaching to the
learners by integrating it into communicative activities. According to some
research, the integration seems to be rewarding for learners. Concluding
research made by Montgomery and Eisenstein (1985), (Allen, Swain,
Harley, & Cummins, 1990) and Beretta and Davies (1985), Lightbown and
Spada (1990: 431) report that classrooms which are provided with FoF
within contexts of meaningful communication perform better than
classrooms which only focused on grammar teaching. FoF classrooms also
work better than classrooms that focus only on providing communicative
activities and avoiding grammar teaching. Similar point toward the benefit
of FoF is also mentioned by Fotos (1998: 307). Hence, FoF may cater the
needs of learners toward communicative and grammatical competence as
well as promoting the optimal language acquisition. Nevertheless, Sheen
(2003: 225) argues that FoF may be not the most effective teaching
option as it only focuses on the grammatical points as they become
problems in communicating the meanings. Thus, FoF seems to abandon
the problem in the forms of language which may hinder the learners from
communicating the messages correctly. Then, Sheen suggests Focus on
Forms (FoFs) as an alternative approach to promote grammar teaching
and communicative activities besides FoF. Hall (2011: 245) describes FoFs
as an instruction that is organized around the systematic presentation of
language forms. To provide an illustration toward FoFs, Sheen (2003:
226) elaborates three stages which comprised FoFs: (1) providing learners
with the comprehension or grammar in various ways (e.g. giving
explanation in the L1, highlighting the differences between L1 and L2, and
providing listening comprehension activities to focus learners with the
forms being taught); (2) providing written and oral exercises that involve
the use of grammar in both non-communicative and communicative
activities; (3) providing frequent opportunities for communicative use of
grammar. In addition, FoFs incorporates any teaching techniques used in
FoF.
Page

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
However, in spite of the differences between FoF and FoFs, both support
grammar teaching in the classrooms. Nevertheless, grammar teaching
that promotes language acquisition is not simply about explaining the
rules of language to learners. As a condition of language acquisition,
learners should notice a particular structure of language or the gap
between their knowledge and target language before they acquire the
structure

(Hall,

2011:

66).

Hence,

noticing

precedes

structuring

(Batstone, 1994: 54). Gass (1997), Harmer (2007), and Lynch (2001) also
mention similar statement. It can be said that after learners notice the
structure, they will use it as a part of their language acquisition. Thus,
language teachers should develop effective ways to focus learner
attention on form as learners are using the second language for
purposeful communication (Murcia, 1992: 408). One of the ways to draw
learners attention to language features, as suggested by Harmer (2007:
54), is through instruction. Hence, learners may comprehend the structure
of language after they get grammar instruction which Spolsky (1989: 197)
mentions as an essential condition to reach linguistic competence.
Doughty (1990), Lightbown and Spada (1999), and Murcia (1992) also
suggest instruction to promote language acquisition of learners. However,
what kind of grammar instruction should be given to learners to make
them notice the structure of target language and use it as acquisition?
Following unit attempts to answer the question.
3. Grammar Instruction
The arguments related to grammar teaching in second language are interesting points to be
explored in an academic essay as there is always controversy whether grammar should be
taught explicitly through a formal presentation of grammatical rules or implicitly through
natural exposure to meaningful language use (Nassaji and Fotos, 2011: 1). However,
DeKeyser (1998: 42) suggests that some kind of focus toward grammar may be useful for
some learners at certain stage of learning. As mentioned in the previous unit, the focus or
noticing toward rules of language can be achieved through instruction. Thus, it can be said
that different learners need different approaches of grammar instruction to promote the

Page

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
comprehension of language rules. According to Hall (2011: 71), language rules can be
introduced to learners through two very different routes; deductive and inductive. Following
sub-units will explore them.
3.1 Deductive Approach
In the classrooms which based on the deductive approach, learners are provided with the
presentation of a rule and followed by examples in which the rule is applied (Thornburry,
1999: 29). Harmer (2007: 203-205) also describes deductive approach as explain and
practise approach as those activities comprise its stages of grammar teaching. In the
explanation stage, teachers present grammar to the learners by modelling sentences and
phrases. However, as maintained by Thornburry (1999: 37), the success of explanation is
depended on the learners understanding toward the metalanguage (language used to
talk about language or grammar terminology). Thus, it is important to
introduce the necessary grammar terminology to learners in the early
stage of explanation. In addition, the explanation should be clear to
promote the focus of learners. After the explanation stage, as explained
by Harmer (2007: 203), learners are led to practise the recently taught rule.
Before practising the rule independently, learners usually practise it under
the supervision of teacher. Therefore, deductive approach can also be regarded as a
time-saving approach as teachers get straight to explain the rules of language instead of
taking time to elicit the rules from learners. Thus, deductive approach may allow more time
to learners to practice their recently taught rules of language. In addition, the direct
presentation of rules in deductive approach may cater the expectations of many, especially
adult, learners and respect learners intelligence and maturity (Thornburry, 1999: 30).
Therefore, it is unsurprising that deductive approach becomes preferable to some learners. As
reported by Burgess and Etherington (2002: 440-441), learners prefer
explicit grammar and lack of it may make learners feel insecure. The
preference of learners toward deductive approach is also mentioned in the
studies of Ellis (2002: 18), Jean and Simard (2013: 1034), and Vogel et al.
(2011: 370). However, Jean and Simard (2013: 1035) suspect that the
preference may be caused by the learners familiarity to deductive
approach or the less cognitively demanding nature of the approach. Ellis

Page

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
(2002: 20) reasons, the tendency of learners to deductive approach may
be due to their view of grammar as a set of rules, not kind of implicit
grammar whose rules are made of learners interlanguage. It can be said
that the preference of some learners to deductive approach because it
provides them with ready-made rules instead of ones they have to infer by
their own. In addition to the preference of learners, some studies report
the benefit of deductive approach to learners language development
compared to other approach. Reporting the finding of Taraban (2004), DeKeyser
(2005: 16) mentions that learning was greatly facilitated either by providing
explicit instruction or by drawing learners attention to the correlated sets
of grammatical morphemes. Besides that, a study by DeKeyser (1995: 399)
found that explicit teaching of rules (as one performed in deductive
approach) is better than to having learners induce the rules by
themselves. Similar result is also reported by Andringa (2005) in TammengaHelmantel et al. (2014: 208) and Tammenga-Helmantel et al (2014: 207).
Although some studies report the benefit of deductive approach, there are
few points that should be taken into consideration before presenting
grammar in deductive approach. Ellis (2002: 22-23) states that deductive
approach should not be given to learners in beginner stage as they have
not built a sufficiently varied lexis to be the basis for the process of rule
extraction. Explained further by Thornburry (1999: 30), learners in
beginner stage may consider the deductive approach as disconcerting
since they have do not have sufficient metalanguage or get confused with
the concepts involved. Besides that, Van Lier in Myhill et al. (2011: 143)
debates that the ability to articulate grammar terminology is less
important than the ability to demonstrate it. However, the point taken by
Van Lier is argued by Carter in Myhill (2012: 143) et al. since the absence
of metalanguage in the classroom may prevent learners from exercising
language in a systematic and more analytical way. In addition to the
readiness of learners, deductive approach is argued to be only useful for
relatively simple grammar rules. A study performed by Reber et al. which

Page

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
mentioned

in

DeKeyser

(1995:

381)

demonstrates

that

deductive

approach results in better learning than inductive approach when the

subjects of lesson are relatively simple rules. However, the prior finding is
debated by a study of Robinson (1996: 27, 43) which shows that learners
who are only exposed with input do not outperform learners who are given
explicit instruction. In addition, the study also demonstrates that the latter
learners are more accurate in the result than learners who are provided
with rule-search instruction. Hence, complex rules can also be presented
in deductive approach. Thus, to bridge the contrasting points, Thornburry
suggests (1999: 38) appropriate factor that should be considered prior the
application of deductive approach in the classroom. For example, although
deductive approach may be suitable for adult learners whose learning
style is more analytical, it may be not appropriate for very young learners
who have not grasped the abstract concepts such as grammatical
terminology. In addition to the age of learners, deductive approach will not
be appropriate for learners who tend to learn through the experience of
communication. The point is echoed by Ellis (2002: 21). Hence, deductive
approach, regardless of its usefulness and preference of some learners,
may be not suitable for all learners. There are certain conditions such as
language level, age, and learning style that should be taken into account
before presenting grammar through deductive approach. Therefore, other
approach may be needed to cater the needs of certain learners. Next subunit will discuss the inductive approach as the alternative to present
grammar to learners.
3.2 Inductive Approach
Inductive approach is a process where learners attain the rules and
principles by inferring from examples and instances (Nunan, 1999: 309).
On the surface, inductive approach may bear resemblance to CA as both
emphasize on the exposure of input in order to make learners aware of
the regularities and patterns of language (Thornburry, 1999: 49).
Nevertheless, as argued by Krashen (1982: 113-114), inductive approach
Page

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
cannot be classified as CA since inductive approach promotes the analysis
of formal aspects of language whereas CA promotes the comprehension of
messages in the input. Thus, inductive approach is a part of learning
language, not language acquisition which endorsed by CA. Furthermore,
Harmer (2007: 207-208) states that inductive approach is comprised of
discovery activities in which learners have to discover the rules of
language by themselves instead of having them explained by teachers.
Thus, although focusing on the teaching of language rule, inductive
approach does not introduce specific terminology to describe rule of
language as deductive approach does. Instead of using grammar
terminology, learners are encouraged to develop their own rules of
language (Jean and Simard, 2013: 1025). As explained further by
Thornburry (1999: 52), discovery learning in the inductive approach
includes cycles of trial and error, with the guidance and feedback
provided by the teacher. After generating the rule of language, learners
will test their hypothesis in the tasks given by the teacher. Feedback will
be provided by the teacher until learners can apply correct form of
language in the tasks. Harmer (2007: 57) points out the benefit of
discovery learning. As learners strive to produce the rule by themselves
and apply it correctly, they are likely to notice it if they meet the similar
sample. Through such process of exploration, learners will acquire genuine
understanding of language. The prior point is conceded by Thornburry
(1999: 54) who adds that discovery learning may increase learners
motivation and active involvement in the classroom. Furthermore,
discovery learning also promotes self-reliance and autonomy of learners.
Besides the points mentioned above, some studies demonstrates the
benefits of inductive approach to the language development of learners. A
study of Haight et al. (2007: 29) suggests that the inductive approach
resulted in better effect on learners than the deductive approach. In
addition, a study of Vogel et al. (2011: 370) find that the inductive
approach gave more measurable beneficial effects on learning grammar
Page

10

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
than the deductive approach. The result is also conceded by a study of
Herron and Tomasello (1992: 716) who claim that as the best learning
condition for learners is when they generate a hypothesis and receive
immediate feedback.
However, similar with the deductive approach, some criticisms are still
pointed at the inductive approach. As the inductive approach does not
provide learners with ready-made rules of language, some learners may
feel overwhelmed with the approach and opt to be spoon-fed with the
rules. Thus, it is argued that the inductive approach may be only
appropriate for advanced learners who have certain knowledge of
language and less beneficial for beginner learners (Harmer, 2007: 208). It
can be said that beginner learners with little or no exposure of the form
used in the lesson may find it difficult to perform the tasks. In addition,
the inductive approach can be less time savvy as it dedicates more time
to generate rules than productive activities. Related to the rules of
language which are generated by learners, there is a chance that learners
theorise wrong rules or ones that either too broad or too narrow in its
application. Besides that, unlike the deductive approach, the inductive
approach demands more time and energy of teachers in the preparation
of lessons (Thornburry, 1999: 54-55). In spite of criticisms, Fischer (1975)
and Hammerly (1975) in Shaffer (1989: 395) mention that the inductive
approach is still preferable in the classroom that promotes a creative and
cognitive process. The statement is supported by a study of Shaffer that
reports the inclination toward inductive approach when learners study
grammar concepts considered as difficult. However, the study does not
suggest teachers to only apply the inductive approach in the classroom.
Teachers should be flexible and incorporate various approaches that can
be beneficial for learners in the classroom (1989: 399). It can be said that,
inductive approach, similar with deductive approach, may be not
applicable to all learners. Thus, teachers need to know what kind of

Page

11

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
grammar instruction which is suitable for the learners by considering the
preferences and level of learners.
4. Conclusion
This essay has discussed the arguments related to the importance of grammar teaching in the
second language classroom. As a set of rules which helps learners to understand the language,
grammar has been taught in the second language classrooms for centuries. However,
grammar teaching has also been criticised as only focusing on the forms of language and not
the ability to communicate language. In addition, due to different needs of learners to learn
the target language, the mastery of whole grammatical form may be not important. However,
some studies performed by Montgomery and Eisenstein (1985), Allen, Swain,
Harley, & Cummins (1990) and Beretta and Davies (1985) inform the benefit
of grammar teaching to the learners language development. Thus, FoF as an approach that
focus on both grammatical and communicative competence of learners is designed.
Nevertheless, FoF which only provides grammar teaching when the form arises as a problem
in the communicative activities is argued by Sheen (2003) as insufficient. He proposes FoFs
as an approach that promotes the optimal language learning. Despite the arguments, FoF and
FoFs support grammar teaching in the classroom. However, to ensure the learners
comprehension toward grammar points, learners should notice the forms of language. One of
the ways to promote the noticing is instruction. There are two different approaches that can
be used to present grammar instruction in the classroom; deductive and inductive. In the
deductive approach, learners are presented with the rules before they practise them in the
sentences. On the other hand, inductive approach presents learners with the samples of
language in which they have to infer the rules from. Both approaches have their own pluses
and minuses. Thus, it is a task for the teachers to decide which approach that can be applied
in the classroom by considering certain points such as age, level, and preferences of learners.

References:
Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treatment:
Toward a More Comprehensive View of Second Language Education. In Harley, B. Allen,
P. Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (Eds.), The Development of Second Language Proficiency

Page

12

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
(pp. 57-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Andringa, S. J. (2005). Form-focused Instruction and the Development of Second Language
Proficiency (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Netherlands: University of
Groningen.
Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beretta, A., & Davies, A. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore Project. ELT Journal, 39,121127
Brown, H.D. (1993). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Burgess, J. & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on Grammatical Form: Explicit or Implicit?
System, Vol.30 (4), p.433-58 [Peer Reviewed Journal].
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second
Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, Vol.1(1), pp.1-47 [Peer Reviewed
Journal].
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar Pedagogy in Second and Foreign Language Teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 459-480. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586980.
[Accessed: 7 December 2014].
Celce-Murcia, M. (1992). Formal Grammar Instruction. An Educator Comments. TESOL
Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 406-409. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587019 .
[Accessed: 13 December 2014].
DeKeyser, R. (1994). Implicit and Explicit Learning of L2 Grammar: A Pilot Study. TESOL
Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 188-194.
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning Second Language Grammar Rules. An Experiment with a
Miniature Linguistic System. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Vol.17 (3), pp.379410 [Peer Reviewed Journal].
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond Explicit Rule Learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, Vol.19 (2), pp.195-221.

Page

13

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond Focus on Form. In Doughty, C & Williams, J (eds). Cognitive
Perspectives on Learning and Practising Second Language Grammar, pp: 42-63.
Cambridge: CUP.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A
Review of Issues. Language Learning, Vol.55 (S1), pp.1-25 [Peer Reviewed Journal]
Doughty, C. (1991). Second Language Instruction Does Make Difference. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 1991, Vol.13(4), pp.431-469 [Peer Reviewed Journal].
Ellis, R. (2002). The Place of Grammar Instruction in the Second/Foreign Language
Curriculum. In Hinkel, & Fotos, S. New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second
Language Classrooms, pp. 14-34. London: Routledge.
Fischer, A. R. (1979). The Inductive-Deductive Controversy Revisited. Modern Language
Journal 63, pp. 98-105.
Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the Focus from Forms to Form in EFL Classroom. ELT Journal
Volume 52/4, pp. 301-307. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Haight, C.E., Herron, C., Cole, S.P., (2007). The effects of Deductive and Guided Inductive
Instructional Approaches on the Learning of Grammar in the Elementary Foreign
Language College Classroom. Foreign Lang. Ann. 40, 288e310.
Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English Language Teaching Language in Action. Oxon:
Routledge.
Hammerly, H. (1975). The Deduction/Induction Controversy. Modern Language Journal 59,
pp. 15-18.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. China: Pearson.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Page

14

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
Herron, C. (1976). An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Using an Advance Organizer in
the Foreign Language Classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78, pp. 190-198.
Herron, C. & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring Grammatical Structures by Guided Induction.
The

French

Review,

Vol.

65,

No.

5,

pp.

708-718.

Available

at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/395311. [Accessed: 9 December 2014].

Hinkel, E & Fotos, S. (2002). New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language
Classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Howatt, A. (1984). A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hymes, D.H. (1971). On Communicative Competence. In Brumfit. C.J & Johnson. K. The
Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 626.
Jean, G & Simard, D. (2013). Deductive Versus Inductive Grammar Instruction. Investigating
Possible Relationships between Gains, Preferences, and Learning Styles. System 41, pp.
1023-1042.
Klapper, J. & Rees, J. (2003). Reviewing the Case for Explicit Grammar Instruction in the
University Foreign Language Learning Context. Language Teaching Research 7, 3; pp.
285314.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Teaching Grammar. In Celce-Murcia. M (ed.) Teaching English
as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 13-42.
Lightbown, P & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-On-Form and Corrective Feedback in
Communicative Language Teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1990,
Vol.12 (4). pp.429-448 [Peer Reviewed Journal]. US: Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P & Spada, N. (1999). Instruction, First Language Influence, and Developmental
Readiness in Second Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83, pp. 1-22.
Page

15

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
Lightbown, P & Spada, N. (2008). Form-Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated?
TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Jun., 2008), pp. 181-207. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264447. [Accessed: 9 December 2014].
Lynch, T. (2001). Seeing What They Meant: Transcribing as a Route of
Noticing. ELT Journal, Vol.55 (2), p.124-32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Macaro, E & Masterman, L. (2006). Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the
difference? Language Teaching Research 10, 3, pp. 297327.
Montgomery,

C,

&

Eisenstein,

M.

(1985).

Reality

revisited:

An

experimental communicative course in ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 317334.

Myhill, D. A et al. (2012). Re-thinking Grammar: the Impact of Embedded
Grammar Teaching on Students Writing and students Metalinguistic
Understanding. Research Papers in Education, Vol.27 (2), pp.139-166.
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms:
Integrating Form-Focused Instruction in Communicative Context. London: Routledge.
Norris, J.M & Ortega, L. (2008). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and
Quantitative Meta-analysis. Language Learning 50:3, pp.417528.
Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching Grammar in Context. ELT Journal Volume 52, pp: 101-109.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publisher.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning Simple and Complex Second Language Rules Under Implicit,
Incidental, Rule-Search, and Instructed Conditions. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, Vol.18 (1), pp.27-67 [Peer Reviewed Journal].
Rea Dickins and Woods. (1988). Some Criteria for the Development of Communicative
Grammar Tasks. TESOL Quarterly Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 623646.

Page

16

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
Rutherford, W. (1987). Second Language Grammar Learning and Teaching. New York:
Longman.
Shaffer, C. (1989). A Comparison of Inductive and Deductive Approaches to Teaching
Foreign Languages. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 395-403. Available
at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/326874. [Accessed: 5 December 2014].
Sheen, R. (2002). Focus on Form or Focus on Forms. ELT Journal, Vol.56 (3), pp. 303-305
[Peer Reviewed Journal]
Sheen, R. (2003). Focus on Forma Myth in Making? ELT Journal, Vol.57 (3), pp. 225-233
[Peer Reviewed Journal].
Spada, N & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between Type of Instruction and Type of
Language Feature: A Meta-Analysis. Language Learning 60:2, pp. 263308.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Swan, M. (2007). Grammar, Meaning, and Pragmatics: Sorting Out the Muddle. Vol.2 (7).
Available at: www.tesl-ej.org/ej42/a4.pdf. [Accessed: 11 December 2014].
Tammenga-Helmantel, M. et al. (2014). The Effectiveness of Deductive, Inductive, Implicit
and Incidental Grammatical Instruction in Second Language Classrooms. System 45
ScienceDirect

(Elsevier

B.V.)

pp:

198-210.

Available

at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.06.003.
Terrell, T.D. (1982). The Natural Approach to Language Teaching: An Update. Modern
Language Journal, 1982, Vol.66 (2), pp.121-132.
Terrell, T.D. (1991). The Role of Grammar Instruction in a Communicative Approach. The
Modern

Language

Journal,

Vol.

75,

No.

1,

pp.

52-63.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/329834. [Accessed: 9 December 2014].

Thornburry, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Malaysia: Pearson.

Page

17

Available

at:

1243929-ILANG1
VACATION ESSAY
Van Lier, L. (1998). The Relationship between Consciousness, Interaction and Language
Learning.
Vanpatten, B. (2003). From Input to Output. Chicago: McGraw Hill.
Vogel, S. et al. (2011). Effectiveness of a Guided Inductive Versus a Deductive Approach on
the Learning of Grammar in the Intermediate Level College French Classroom. Foreign
Language Annals vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 353-380

Page

18